No One is More Interested in Curing Your Cancer Than You

A diagnosis of cancer thrusts a, heretofore, healthy individual into the strange and unfamiliar territory of medical oncology. Many of my patients describe this transition as “entering the cancer bubble.” Suddenly, you are on the inside and everyone on the outside is talking at you about what to do, where to go, whom to see, and what treatments to receive.

From the inside of the bubble however, all of this has a hollow ring as you ponder many options, few good and some, positively frightening. Unfortunately, few patients have the time to complete a MD, or PhD, between diagnosis and the initiation of treatment. Lacking the requisite expertise, they turn to the “authorities” for advice.

Depending on which “authority” one consults, the recommendations may be colored by prejudices and biases. Some physicians adhere strictly to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Others insist upon accrual to Cooperative Group and Phase II trials. University-based investigators will often recommend developmental studies. And some physicians will follow the path of least resistance, examining such issues as cost, chair time and reimbursement, before considering what treatment to deliver.

It is in this milieu, that patients find themselves adrift. Who exactly should you trust? What is their motivation? To put it crassly, when they recommend a specific treatment, what’s in it for them: Cooperative Group points (provided to the most active accruers), academic accolades (the currency of junior faculty), cost containment (the purview of the managed care physicians), or finally, profit margins? Yes, there are a small number of physicians whose choices reflect their own pecuniary interests.

The antidote to all this uncertainty lies within each patient; answers to vexing questions crying out to be heard. These answers reflect the biologic features of each individual’s tumor. What pathway, what repair mechanism, what survival signal drives your tumor? No one has a perfect answer, not the genomic investigators (despite their protestations to the contrary), nor the immunohistochemists, despite the significant appeal of the platform. And not the immunologist (despite brilliant progress in this field over recent years). The closest approximation to human tumor biology is, well, human tumor biology. Using cellular constructs, in the form of native state microspheroids, we can today approximate the response profiles of patients undergoing systemic therapies. Using systems approaches to complex questions, the multitude of factors that contribute to objective response can be examined and elucidated.

No test is perfect. No patient is guaranteed a good outcome. Yet, doubling the objective response rate, and as we and others have documented, improving the time to progression and overall survival can be achieved with available methodologies that apply functional profiling to individual tumors.

No one would walk away from an investment formula that doubled the value of their portfolio. Few would turn down the opportunity to enhance their real estate positions predicated on reliable information from a realtor. Yet everyday, physicians convince patients to walk away from available, published, established methods that can improve response rates, diminish toxicities and avoid futile care. In this environment it is critical for patients to take charge of their own cancer management. Patients must not be dissuaded from seeking the best possible outcomes. Physicians, no matter how well intentioned, are human. Their opinions can be colored by misconceptions and an incomplete understanding of the questions at hand. Laboratory analysis empowers patients to make smart decisions.

In the game of cancer we need all the help we can get. After all, no one is more interested in saving your life than you.

Gee (G719X) Whiz: Novel Mutations and Response to Targeted Therapies

In a recent online forum a patient described her experience using Tarceva as a therapy for an EGFR mutation negative lung cancer. For those of you familiar with the literature you will know that Lynch and Paez both described the sensitizing mutations that allow patients with certain adenocarcinoma to respond beautifully to the small molecule inhibitors.  The majority of these mutations are found in Exon 19 and Exon 21, within the EGFR domain. Response rates for the EGFR-TKI (gefitinib and erlotinib) clearly favor mutation positive patients. Depending upon the study, mutation positive patients have response rates from 53 – 100 percent, generally around 70 percent, while mutation negative response patients have a response rate of 0 – 25 percent, generally about 10 percent.So why don’t all the mutation positive patients respond and conversely why do some mutation negative patients respond?

The story outlined in this online forum gives some insight. The individual in question carried a rare, and only recently recognized, Exon 18 mutation known as a G719X. This uncommon form of mutation had previously been unknown and few laboratories knew to test for it. Nonetheless, G719X positive patients respond to erlotinib and related agents. Indeed, there may be reason to believe that the more potent irreversible EGFR/HER2 dual inhibitor HKI-272, may be even more selective for this point mutation.

The excellent and durable response described by this individual, would not have been possible had the patient’s first physician followed the rules. That is, had her physician refused to give erlotinib to an (putatively) EGFR mutation negative patient she might well not be here to tell her story. More to the point, her good response (a clinical observation) led to the next level of investigation, namely the identification of this specific EGFR variant

The lessons from this experience are numerous. The first is that cancer biology is complex and, to paraphrase E.O. Wilson, was not put on earth for us to necessarily figure it out. The second, is that molecular biologists can only seek and identify that which they know about apriori.  To wit, if you don’t know about it (G719X) and you don’t have a test for it, and you don’t know to look for it, then it’s a virtual certainty that you aren’t going to find it.

The premise of our work at Rational Therapeutics is that the observation of a biological signal identifies a candidate for therapy whether we understand or recognize the target. Crizotinib was originally developed as a clinical therapy for patients who carried the CMET mutation. Serendipity led to the recognition that the responding subpopulation was actually carrying a heretofore-unrecognized ALK gene rearrangement. Sorafenib was originally evaluated for the treatment of BRAF mutation positive diseases. Yet it was the drug’s cross-reactivity with the VGEF tyrosine kinases that lead to its broad clinical applications. Each of these phenomena represents accidental successes. Were it not for the clinical observation of response in patients, the investigators conducting these trials would have been unlikely to make the discoveries that today provide such good clinical responses in others.

To put it quite simply, these patients and their disease entities educated the molecular biologists.

When we first identified lung cancer as a target for gefitinib, and began to administer the closely related erlotinib to lung cancer patients, neither Lynch nor Paez had identified the sensitizing EGFR mutations. That had absolutely no impact upon the excellent responses that we observed. It didn’t matter why it worked, but that it worked.  While the EGFR story has now been well-described, might we not use functional analytical platforms (functional profiling) to gain insights into the next, and the next generation of drugs and therapies that target pathways like MEK, ERK, SHH, FGFR, PI3K, etc., etc., etc. . . .

Chemosensitivity Testing – What It Is and What It Isn’t

Several weeks ago I was consulted by a young man regarding the management of his heavily pre-treated, widely metastatic rectal carcinoma. Upon review of his records, it was evident that under the care of both community and academic oncologists he had already received most of the active drugs for his diagnosis. Although his liver involvement could easily provide tissue for analysis, I discouraged his pursuit of an assay. Despite this, he and his wife continued to pursue the option.

As I sat across from the patient, with his complicated treatment history in hand, I was forced to admit that he looked the picture of health. Wearing a pork pie hat rakishly tilted over his forehead, I could see few outward signs of the disease that ravaged his body. After a lengthy give and take, I offered to submit his CT scans to our gastrointestinal surgeon for his opinion on the ease with which a biopsy could be obtained. I then dropped a note to the patient’s local oncologist, an accomplished physician who I respected and admired for his practicality and patient advocacy.

A week later, I received a call from the patient’s physician. Though cordial, he was puzzled by my willingness to pursue a biopsy on this heavily treated individual. I explained to him that I was actually not highly motivated to pursue this biopsy, but instead had responded to the patient’s urging me to consider the option. I agreed with the physician that the conventional therapy options were limited but noted that several available drugs might yet have a role in his management including signal transduction inhibitors.

I further explained that some patients develop a process of collateral sensitivity, whereby resistance to one class of drugs (platins, for example) can enhance the efficacy of other class of drugs (such as, antimetabolite) Furthermore, patients may fail a drug, then be treated with several other classes of agents, only then a year of two later, manifest sensitivity to the original drug.

Our conversation then took a surprising turn. First, he told me of his attendance at a dinner meeting, some 25 years earlier, where Dan Von Hoff, MD, had described his experiences with the clonogenic assay. He went on to tell me how that technique had been proven unsuccessful finding a very limited role in the elimination of “inactive” drugs with no capacity to identify “active “drugs. He finished by explaining that these shortcomings were the reason why our studies would be unlikely to provide useful information.

I found myself grasping for a handle on the moment. Here was a colleague, and collaborator, who had heard me speak on the topic a dozen times. I had personally intervened and identified active treatments for several of his patients, treatments that he would have never considered without me. He had invited me to speak at his medical center and spoke glowingly of my skills. And yet, he had no real understanding of what I do. It made me pause and wonder whether the patients and physicians with whom I interact on a daily basis understand the principles of our work. For clarity, in particular for those who may be new to my work, I provide a brief overview.

1.    Cancer patients are highly individual in their response to chemotherapies. This is why each patient must be tested to select the most effective drug regimen.

2.    Today we realize that cancer doesn’t grow too much it dies too little. This is why older growth-based assays didn’t work and why cell-death-based assays do.

3.    Cancer must be tested in their native state with the stromal, vascular and inflammatory elements intact. This is why we use microspheroids isolated directly from patients and do not grow or subculture our specimens.

4.    Predictions of response are not based on arbitrary drug concentrations but instead reflect the careful calibration of in vitro findings against patient outcomes – the all-important clinical database.

5.    We do not conduct drug resistance assays. We conduct drug sensitivity assays. These drug sensitivity assays have been shown statistically significantly to correlate with response, time to progression and survival.

6.    We do not conduct genomic analyses for there are no genomic platforms available today that are capable of reproducing the complexity, cross-talk, redundancy or promiscuity of human tumor biology.

7.    Tumors manifest plasticity that requires iterative studies. Large biopsies and sometimes multiple biopsies must be done to construct effective treatment programs.

8.    With chemotherapy, very often more is not better.

9.    New drugs are not always better drugs.

10.   And finally, cancer drugs do not know what diseases they were invented for.
While we could continue to enumerate the principles that guide our practice, one of the more important principles is humility. Medicine is a humbling experience and cancer medicine even more so. Patients often know more than their doctors give them credit for. Failing to incorporate a patient’s input, experience and wishes into the treatment programs that we design, limits our capacity to provide them the best outcome.

With regard to my colleague who seemed so utterly unfamiliar with these concepts, indeed for a large swath of the oncologic community as a whole, I am reminded of the saying “There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”

The Unfulfilled Promise of Genomic Analysis

In the March 8 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators from London, England, reported disturbing news regarding the predictive validity and clinical applicability of human tumor genomic analysis for the selection of chemotherapeutic agents.

As part of an ongoing clinical trial in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (the E-PREDICT) these investigators had the opportunity to conduct biopsies upon metastatic lesions and then compare their genomic profiles with those of the primary tumors. Their findings are highly instructive, though not terribly unexpected. Using exon-capture they identified numerous mutations, insertions and deletions. Sanger sequencing was used to validate mutations. When they compared biopsy specimens taken from the kidney they found significant heterogeneity from one region to the next.

Similar degrees of heterogeneity were observed when they compared these primary lesions with the metastatic sites of spread. The investigators inferred a branched evolution where tumors evolved into clones, some spreading to distant sites, while others manifested different features within the primary tumor themselves. Interestingly, when primary sites were matched with metastases that arose from that site, there was greater consanguinity between the primary and met than between one primary site and another primary site in the same kidney. Another way of looking at this is that your grandchildren look more like you, than your neighbor.

Tracking additional mutations, these investigators found unexpected changes that involved histone methyltransferase, histone d-methyltransferase and the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN). These findings were perhaps among the most interesting of the entire paper for they support the principal of phenotypic convergence, whereby similar genomic changes arise by Darwinian selection. This, despite the observed phenotypes arising from precursors with different genomic heritages. This fundamental observation suggests that cancers do not arise from genetic mutation, but instead select advantageous mutations for their survival and success.

The accompanying editorial by Dr. Dan Longo makes several points worth noting.  First he states that “DNA is not the whole story.” This should be familiar to those who follow my blogs, as I have said the same on many occasions.  In his discussion, Dr Longo then references Albert Einstein, who said “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Touché.

I appreciate and applaud Dr. Longo’s comments for they echo our sentiments completely. This article is only the most recent example of a growing litany of observations that call into question molecular biologist’s preternatural fixation on genomic analyses. Human biology is not simple and malignantly transformed cells more complex still. Investigators who insist upon using genomic platforms to force disorderly cells into artificially ordered sub-categories, have once again been forced to admit that these oversimplifications fail to provide the needed insights for the advancement of cancer therapeutics. Those laboratories and corporations that offer “high price” genomic analyses for the selection of chemotherapy drugs should read this and related articles carefully as these reports portend a troubling future for their current business model.

Best Chance for Colon Cancer Survival – Don’t Let It Start

Two papers in the February 23, 2012, New England Journal of Medicine reported important findings in the fight against colon cancer. The first paper (Zuber, AG et al; Colonoscopic Polypectomy and Long-Term Prevention of Colorectal Cancer Deaths) conducted by American investigators establishes the benefit of polyp removal in the prevention of death from colorectal cancer. The study conducted upon 2,602 patients who had adenomas removed reveals a 53 percent reduction in mortality from colon cancer compared with the expected death rate from the disease in this population.

To put this into perspective – virtually no intervention in the advanced disease setting provides a survival advantage. The best we can usually do once the disease is established is an improvement in time to progression. When we do observe a true survival advantage it is usually in the range of a few percentage points and never of this magnitude. How might we explain this astonishingly positive result?

One way to view this finding is to reexamine the biology of cancer. One of the leading experts in the field, Bert Vogelstein, MD, from Johns Hopkins, explained colon carcinogenesis as a pattern of gene perturbations starting at atypia, progressing to carcinoma in situ and ending with invasive, metastatic disease. According to Dr. Vogelstein, the average colon cancer found in a patient at the time of colonoscopy has been present in that person’s colon for 27 years. From there it is only a hop, skip and a jump from one-centimeter adenomatous polyp to metastatic (lethal) disease, all playing out over the last three years in the natural history of the disease. Thus, cancer truly is a disease that doesn’t grow too much, but dies too little and interrupting this process while it is still slumbering can, it would seem, lead to cures.

What I find surprising is the success of the strategy. Since it is now well established that cancer can metastasize when it has achieved the rather diminutive proportions of 0.125 cubic centimeters or less and the average polyp can only be detected at one or more cubic centimeters, it is our good fortune that so many cancers chose not to (or could not) metastasize prior to detection. Reading between the lines, those 12 patients who died of colon cancer as opposed to the expected 25.4 are presumably those with early metastasizing disease. The next frontier will be the detection of these cancers when they are teenagers and not 20-somethings. It may be that proteomic analyses will provide an avenue for earlier detection in the future.

The second article is a European study (Quintero, E et al; Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunohistochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening) that compared colonoscopy with fecal blood testing in a large cohort of patients. While the rates of detection for colorectal cancer were similar, the rates of detecting both advanced and early adenomas, favored colonoscopy (p < .001). This study represents an interesting adjunct to the American study described above. Specifically, if the early detection (and removal) of adenomas can confer a survival advantage then it could be argued that colonoscopy by its virtue of it’s higher detection rate of these precancerous adenomas, is the preferred “screening” modality. With over 50,000 deaths attributed to colorectal cancer in the U.S. each year, the public health benefit of colonoscopies becomes an intersecting point of discussion. Until now, fecal occult blood testing yearly or sigmoidoscopies every several years has been considered equivalent to colonoscopies every 10 years starting at age 50. Do we need to move colonoscopies to the front of the line?

What is most interesting about both these reports is the low-tech nature of the study modalities – and the astonishing efficacy of their application. Colonoscopies have been conducted for decades. They are comparatively simple, do not require affymetrix chips, and yet provide demonstrable benefit that appears to exceed anything offered, to date, by the “genomic revolution.” Perhaps we should all keep an open mind about other comparatively low-tech methodologies that can provide survival advantages.

A Day at CHORI (Children’s Hospital of Oakland Research Institute)

As a hematology fellow at the Scripps Clinic in the 1980s, my friend and colleague Sheldon Hendler, MD, PHD, recommended that I read an article in Science magazine. The manuscript entitled “Cancer and Diet,” by Bruce Ames, PhD, described the mutagens and carcinogens to which we are exposed on a daily basis that are found in a normal diet. His paper then examined the defenses that we have developed as a species.

Dr. Ames has distinguished himself as a pioneer in the study of aging, degenerative disease and cancer and I have read many of his papers since then. You can imagine my delight when I received a phone call some months ago and found that my interlocutor was none other than Bruce Ames, inviting me to speak at his research institute.

On Tuesday, January 31, I traveled to Oakland to present a symposium. Dr. Ames arranged for me to meet many of his colleagues. The topics ranged from neuraminic acid residues expressed as neoantigens on dividing cancer cells, to antifungal agents as anti-cancer drugs. One discussion of particular interest surrounded sphingomyelin metabolism as an important mediator of tumor cell progression. A subject about which I knew little prior to this discussion but will certainly now examine with interest.

It is my hope that I might forge collaborations with some of these investigators. But, there is little that could have prepared me for the pleasure I experienced when sitting across the table from Dr. Ames, while sipping a freshly brewed espresso (deftly prepared by Dr. Ames himself), while we discussed Bruce’s six decades of extraordinary discoveries. Everywhere I looked was an award or a textbook that he had authored. Despite his many accomplishments he was humble, engaging and very witty.

My symposium that afternoon introduced the attendees to human tumor primary culture studies as predictors of response to cancer therapy. I then moved through the accumulated data supporting the clinical outcomes and finally examined our developmental work, finishing with our published collaboration with investigators at NYU and Cornell on the study of a novel class of Wnt inhibitors. Lively discussion ensued.

Among the attendees was Bengt Mannervik, who asked several good questions. I note his presence for he is one of the leading experts in the field of glutathione metabolism and a scientist who I had met several times before. As one of the fathers of glutathione s-transferase chemistry, Bengt’s work had influenced my earlier studies. It was an unexpected honor to have him in the audience, as a visiting professor on sabbatical from Uppsala.

As I have noted before, the reception from the scientists in these fora improves as they examine the data on its own merit, unaffected by the clinical dogma and politicking that contaminates so much discourse in medical oncology today. There was no agenda, just scientific interest and open discussion. It was a refreshing departure and a welcome opportunity to interact with open-minded investigators.

In the audience was Dr. Ames’ wife, Giovanna, a former professor of biochemistry at Berkeley, and a scientist whose work included the earliest discovery of the ABC transporters, now recognized as the basis for the human p-glycoprotein drug resistance mechanisms. At the end of the lecture, Giovanna Ames, impressed by the data, raised her hand and asked, “If what you need is a small portion of each patient’s tumor to conduct these studies, what do we have to do to be sure that every doctor sends you a piece of tumor?” While I’m not sure I that have the answer to her question, I am very sure that I like the way she thinks.

Paradigm Shifts

Scientific dogma in all disciplines is slow to change.

I am again reminded of this by the recent publication of a book by Dava Sobel, “A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos” about the life and times of Nicolaus Copernicus. I use the term “dogma” intentionally, for Copernicus lived in the tumultuous times of the Protestant religious movement. Thus, his revolutionary concept of a heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system clashed with both scientific and religious dogmas.

Copernicus himself, a polymath, was a linguist, astronomer and a physician. His original observations in 1514 so conflicted with existing thinking regarding the geocentric solar system, that his treatise on the topic wasn’t published until 1543 – just a year before he died.

Copernicus, Galileo and Giordano Bruno — who himself was burned at the stake in 1600 for having the temerity to suggest that there might be other solar systems in the universe — were all victims of prevailing thinking that would not and could not yield to the burgeoning new understanding contained within Copernicus’s carefully constructed view of the cosmos.

These experiences are instructive, for they shine the light of day upon dogma in contemporary science and medicine. Failed attempts to utilize human tissue for the study of tumor biology led to an entire generation of cancer researchers to erroneously dismiss this profoundly important field of endeavor. No amount of data or cogent scientific argument could dissuade these authorities from their “dogmatic” position that human tissue could not predict cancer response. When one colleague in the field compiled all of the existing data and showed in an analysis that patients who received assay-sensitive drugs responded statistically, significantly more often than those who received assay-resistant drugs (p= 0.00000001) it had absolutely no impact on the “experts” opinions.

Perhaps today, 500 years later, we can learn something from Copernicus and his experience with scientific dogma.

Cancer Research Becomes “Curiouser and Curiouser”

Following the Gina Kolata New York Times article on July 8, 2011, which described the failure of the Duke University gene profile program in lung cancer, a second New York Times article popped up on the radar screen.  “Cancer’s Secrets Come into Sharper Focus” by George Johnson, examined the growing complexity of cancer research.

This article explored the growing realization that human biology is not linear. Included were references to work that we have previously described in this blog, including the groundbreaking work of Pier Paolo Pandolfi. It also described the interaction between the human body and its microbial flora. We have long recognized that human health is, in part, associated with our interaction with microbes in our environment. The gastrointestinal tract has numerous species that are increasingly believed to contribute to our health. The growing field of probiotics, wherein people consume “healthy organisms,” has gone from quackery to community standard in less than a decade.

What is interesting over the past years is the growing recognition that many cancers are related to infections. Viral infections are known to be oncogenic, with the Epstein-Barr virus, HPV and other viruses now known to be causative of lymphomas, cervical, head and neck, and other cancers. The association between helicobacter and ulcers, gastric lymphoma, and esophageal malignancies are of interest both epidemiologically and therapeutically.

What is most interesting of all is the growing recognition that the cancer cell is but a small component of the cancer.

Here at Rational Therapeutics we recognized the interplay between cells, stroma, vascular elements, cytokines, macrophages, lymphocytes and other environmental factors. This lead to our focus on the human tumor primary culture microspheroid, which contains all of these elements. In our earlier work, we endeavored to isolate tumor cells from their benign constituents so as to study “pure” tumor cells. As time went on, however, we found that these disaggregated cells were artificially sensitized to the effects of chemotherapy and provided false positive results in vitro.

Early work by Beverly Teicher and Robert Kerbel that examined cells alone and in 3-dimensional structures, lead to the realization that cancer cells inhabit a microenvironment. Our lab now studies cancer response to drugs within this microenvironment, enabling us to provide clinically relevant predictions to our patients.

It is our capacity to study human tumor microenvironments that distinguishes us from other platforms in the field. And, it is this capacity that enables us to conduct discovery work on the most sophisticated classes of compounds that influence cell signaling at the level of notch, hedgehog and WNT, among other (Gonsalves, F, et al. (2011). An RNAi-based chemical genetic screen identifies three small-molecule inhibitors of WNT/wingless signaling pathway. PNAS vol. 108, no. 15, pp. 5954-5963).  With this clinically validated platform we are now positioned to streamline drug development and advance experimental therapeutics.

Recurrent Small Cell Cancer of the Lung: A Therapeutic Challenge

I recall as a junior medical oncology Fellow, one of my senior Fellows describing small cell cancer of the lung as “leukemia of the lung.” The reason he used this description was because leukemia is among the most rapidly progressive and aggressive forms of cancer.

Arising in the bone marrow, an afflicted patient’s white blood cell count can double every day, a remarkable achievement when one considers the hundreds of billions of cells involved. What this doctor meant was that the lung cancer of small cell type (also known as oat cell), grew so rapidly that in untreated patients, survival can be measured in weeks to months. With the discovery of effective chemotherapy this disease became a comparatively easy mark for the treating oncologist. Ironically, where it was the worst form of lung cancer during the 70s, by the 1990s it was the best form to have. Most patients responded to treatment and some lived years. The problem is, treating patients who recur.

For unknown reasons this otherwise chemosensitive disease has a tendency to recur with a vengeance. Attempts to control recurrent disease with second line therapies have characteristically been unsuccessful. Drug combinations that are generally quite active in the first line setting, are almost universally inactive in second line use.

As a result, recurrent small cell lung cancer is tantamount to a death sentence.

Two months ago, a slender woman arrived at Rational Therapeutics carrying a biopsy kit and a bottle filled with straw-colored fluid. She explained that her husband had recurrent small cell lung cancer and his surgeon had inserted a chest tube. He then provided us with both biopsy material and fluid. She went on to say that she herself was a laboratory scientist and was familiar with laboratory techniques.

We processed the specimen, which provided amble cells for analysis. Not surprisingly, the tumor was resistant to many (most) of the drugs tested. However, the class of drugs known as alkylating agents revealed persistent activity. More importantly, the combination of an alkylating agent and topotican revealed activity and synergy.

Having published a paper on this topic several years ago, (Nagourney et al, British Journal of Cancer 2003) I was quite familiar with this combination. Referencing work by investigators at Yale University, using the combination of cytoxan and topotican, I provided my recommendation to a colleague who administered this combination with a very tolerable weekly dose schedule.

The patient responded immediately. So much so, that between cycle one and cycle two he took a vacation to San Diego with his wife.  Further response was documented following cycle two.  Most gratifying has been the very limited amount of toxicity in the treatment itself.

Looking Forward to TEDxSoCal

I remember my first recollection of the TED (Technology Entertainment Design) conferences, which have been held annually for almost two decades. Drawing together innovators in a broad spectrum of disciplines, these programs have become an institution unto themselves. With invited speakers ranging from Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson to business leaders, like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, the lectures cover a panoply of interesting topics.

It was with a sense of delight that I received an invitation to speak at the TEDxSoCal conference on July 16 at the Long Beach Terrace Theater. As the date approaches, I am looking forward to the event with great anticipation. Since the event is sold out, I understand I’ll have 800 attendees in the audience.

What an interesting opportunity to engage this group in a discussion of cancer biology with our focus on biochemistry and metabolism. This is timely in the context of Gina Kolata’s recent article in the New York Times on the failures of genomics platforms in the field of functional profiling for cancer treatment.

I will report next week on this experience.